“The Telepathy Tapes” Podcast: Misguided Hope or Calculated Pseudoscience?

You’ve probably heard of The Telepathy Tapes podcast by now. The premise? Showcasing so-called “evidence” of telepathic abilities among nonverbal individuals, primarily autistic people, mainly when communicating with other nonverbal individuals.

Are we truly in an era where science is optional — where extraordinary claims no longer demand extraordinary evidence? In this podcast, The Telepathy Tapes, claims that nonverbal autistic people use telepathy to communicate are certainly extraordinary. So, too, is the method some third-party “facilitators” use to decode these communications: a Ouija board. No, I’m not kidding.

The evidence they provide to support these claims, however, is only extraordinary in that it’s not provided. There is no scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of telepathy…none. Zilch. The same goes for its board game-based offshoot, called “facilitated communication.” There’s a word for something like this: pseudoscience.

The more I listened to those episodes, the more upset I became. One of my dear friends even paid for access so we could watch the so-called “evidence.” All those videos confirmed that there was, in fact, no telepathy. The children could only communicate with a specific person in the room—the same person who already knew the answers to the questions being asked.

The host tried to justify this by claiming that it only works if you believe in it. Weak.

Why are parents eating up the The Telepathy Tapes?

And yet, people are eating it up. Parents, desperate for hope, are falling for it. And honestly? I get it. When trying to help your child, you’d move mountains and rewrite the laws of physics. The need to dig for out-of-the-box solutions is real—I’ve been there. We all have, haven’t we? We want to keep an open mind to help our kids. I get that. 

But this…this isn’t a solution. Facilitated communication and RPM are a Ouija board with better marketing. And it frustrates me, because the more we talk about pseudoscience, the less we’re fighting for real, evidence-based progress for our kids.

I get why autism parents fall for it. I really do.

But I can’t help but feel sad for the parents falling for this stuff. I  don’t blame them for falling for this—not for a second. It’s not about gullibility; it’s about being human. They want answers. They want something to work. And when science doesn’t have all the answers, the idea of magic can be incredibly tempting.

We owe it to ourselves—and to our kids—to keep fighting for solutions rooted in evidence. To push for research and progress that can stand up to scrutiny. I understand the need for hope. I do. But hope without truth isn’t hope at all. It’s a distraction.

I know this post might anger or disappoint some people. That’s okay. As someone with a platform, I feel a responsibility to encourage critical thinking and advocate for science-based approaches.

Yes, yes, I’ve seen “Spellers”. Here’s a great review of it: https://www.facilitatedcommunication.org/blog/a-review-of-the-movie-spellers-a-documercial-for-spelling-to-communicate

References:

Facilitated Communication (FC) and the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) have been extensively studied and found to lack scientific validity. Here are key references and links to studies and authoritative statements highlighting the lack of evidence supporting these methods:

1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Statements:
   • Facilitated Communication: ASHA explicitly states that FC is a discredited technique with no scientific evidence supporting its validity.
     ASHA
   • Rapid Prompting Method: ASHA warns against the use of RPM, citing a lack of supporting scientific evidence and potential harm due to its similarities to FC.
     ASHA
2. Systematic Reviews:
   • A comprehensive review found no scientific basis for RPM, emphasizing the absence of empirical support for its effectiveness.
     Facilitated Communication
   • Another systematic review concluded that RPM lacks evidence as an intervention for individuals with autism spectrum disorder and that further primary research is not justified.
     ResearchGate
3. Research Articles:
   • An analysis published in Spectrum News found no evidence supporting RPM as a communication method for autistic individuals.
     The Transmitter
   • A study from the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute highlighted the lack of evidence for RPM in enhancing communication for individuals with autism spectrum disorder.
     FPG Child Development Institute
4. Critical Reviews:
   • A review in the Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders exposed the lack of evidence supporting RPM, advising against its use until future trials demonstrate safety and effectiveness.
     Facilitated Communication
5. Wikipedia Articles:
   • The Wikipedia entry on Facilitated Communication provides an overview of the technique and summarizes the scientific consensus regarding its lack of validity.
     Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article on Augmentative and Alternative Communication discusses pseudoscientific techniques, including FC and RPM, and their lack of empirical support.
Wikipedia

If you’re looking for ways to help your nonverbal child/adult communicate, I recommend exploring science-based options like sign language or AAC.